Comparison of Safety and Efficacy of Bivalirudin Versus Unfractionated Heparin in Percutaneous Peripheral Intervention: A Single-Center Experience

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to determine the efficacy and safety of bivalirudin versus low-dose unfractionated heparin (UFH) in percutaneous peripheral intervention (PPI).BackgroundAnticoagulation strategies used in PPI are based primarily on studies of percutaneous coronary intervention where higher doses of heparin are used usually in combination with a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor. There are no studies comparing bivalirudin alone versus low-dose heparin in PPI.MethodsConsecutive patients who underwent PPI at our institution were treated with either bivalirudin or low-dose UFH. Patients were assessed prospectively during index hospital stay for procedural success and bleeding complications. Of 236 patients, 111 were dosed with UFH at 50 U/kg (goal activated clotting time of 180 to 240 s), and 125 were dosed with bivalirudin at 0.75-mg/kg/h bolus followed by a 1.75-mg/kg infusion. Procedural success was defined as <20% post-procedure residual stenosis with no flow-limiting dissections or intravascular thrombus formation and major bleeding as intracranial or retroperitoneal hemorrhage or a fall in hemoglobin ≥5 g/dl. Anticoagulation cost analysis was conducted.ResultsProcedural success and major bleeding rates were similar with bivalirudin versus heparin (98% vs. 99% and 2.4% vs. 0.9%, respectively). There were no differences in minor bleeding, time to ambulation, and length of hospital stay. The hospital cost for bivalirudin was $547 and <$1.22 for heparin (10,000 U). Two activated clotting time levels cost $4.00.ConclusionsLow-dose UFH is as effective and safe as bivalirudin when used as an anticoagulation strategy in patients undergoing PPI, and low-dose UFH is less costly than bivalirudin. Larger randomized studies are required to further evaluate these findings.